New Generation Computing

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 295–318 | Cite as

Inductive logic programming

  • Stephen Muggleton
Special Issue


A new research area, Inductive Logic Programming, is presently emerging. While inheriting various positive characteristics of the parent subjects of Logic Programming and Machine Learning, it is hoped that the new area will overcome many of the limitations of its forebears. The background to present developments within this area is discussed and various goals and aspirations for the increasing body of researchers are identified. Inductive Logic Programming needs to be based on sound principles from both Logic and Statistics. On the side of statistical justification of hypotheses we discuss the possible relationship between Algorithmic Complexity theory and Probably-Approximately-Correct (PAC) Learning. In terms of logic we provide a unifying framework for Muggleton and Buntine’s Inverse Resolution (IR) and Plotkin’s Relative Least General Generalisation (RLGG) by rederiving RLGG in terms of IR. This leads to a discussion of the feasibility of extending the RLGG framework to allow for the invention of new predicates, previously discussed only within the context of IR.


Learning logic programming induction predicate invention inverse resolution information compression 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    R.B. Banerji. Learning in the limit in a growing language. InIJCAI-87, pages 280–282, Los Angeles, CA, 1987. Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. Bennett. Logical depth and physical complexity. In R. Herken, editor,The Universal Turing Machine A Half Century Survey, pages 227–257. Kammerer and Unverzagt, Hamburg, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    I. Bratko.Prolog for artificial intelligence. Addison-Wesley, London, 1986.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    W. Buntine. Generalised subsumption and its applications to induction and redundancy.Artificial Intelligence, 36(2):149–176, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Carnap.The Continuum of Inductive Methods. Chicago University, Chicago, 1952.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. Chaitin.Information, Randomness and Incompleteness — Papers on Algorithmic Information Theory. World Scientific Press, Singapore, 1987.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Dietterich. Limitations of inductive learning. InProceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Machine Learning, pages 124–128, San Mateo, CA, 1989. Morgan-Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Ehrenfeucht, D. Haussler, M. Kearns, and L. Valiant. A general lower bound on the number of examples needed for learning. InCOLT 88: Proceedings of the Conference on Learning, pages 110–120, Los Altos, CA, 1988. Morgan-Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Feferman et al., editor.Gödel’s Collected Works. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M.S. Fox and J. McDermott. The role of databases in knowledge-based systems. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-86-3, Carnegie-Mellon University, Robotics Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A.M. Frisch and C.D. Page. On inductive generalisation with taxonomic back-ground knowledge. Technical report, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    K. Gödel. Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter System I.Monats. Math. Phys., 32:173–198, 1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    E.M. Gold. Language identification in the limit.Information and Control, 10:447–474, 1967.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    D. Haussler. Quantifying inductive bias: AI learning algorithms and Valiant’s learning framework.Artificial intelligence, 36:177–221, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Hayes-Michie. News from Brainware.Pragmatica, 1:10–11, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    H. Ishizaka. Learning simple deterministic languages. InComputational learning theory: proceedings of the second annual workshop, San Mateo, CA, 1989. Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    R.A. Kowalski.Logic for Problem Solving. North Holland, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    B. Kuipers. Qualitative simulation.Artificial Intelligence, 29:289–338, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    X. Ling and M. Dawes Theory reduction with uncertainty: A reason for theoretical terms. Technical Report 271, University of Western Ontario, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J.W. Lloyd.Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    M.J. Maher. Equivalences of logic programs. InProceedings of Third International Conference on Logic Programming, Berlin, 1986. Springer.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    T.M. Mitchell, R.M. Keller, and S.T. Kedar-Cabelli. Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view.Machine Learning, 1(1):47–80, 1986.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    H. Mortimer.The Logic of Induction. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, England, 1988.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    S.H. Muggleton. Duce, an oracle based approach to constructive induction. InIJCAI-87, pages 287–292. Kaufmann, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    S.H. Muggleton. Inverting the resolution principle. InMachine Intellience 12 (in press) Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    S.H. Muggleton. A strategy for constructing new predicates in first order logic. InProceedings of the Third European Working Session on Learning, pages 123–130. Pitman, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    S.H. Muggleton.Inductive Acquisition of Expert Knowledge. Addision-Wesley, Wokingham, England, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    S.H. Muggleton and W. Buntine. Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. InProceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 339–352. Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    S.H. Muggleton and C. Feng. Efficient induction of logic programs. InProceedings of the First Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Tokyo, 1990. Ohmsha.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    T. Niblett. A study of generalisation in logic programs. InEWSL-88, London, 1988. Pitman.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    G.D. Plotkin.Automatic Methods of Inductive Inference. PhD thesis, Edinburgh University, August 1971.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    J.R. Quinlan. Discovering rules from large collections of examples: a case study. In D. Michie, editor,Expert Systems in the Micro-electronic Age, pages 168–201. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1979.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    J.R. Quinlan. Learning relations: comparison of a symbolic and a connectionist approach. Technical Report 346, University of Sydney, 1989.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    J.A. Robinson. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle.JACM, 12(1):23–41, January 1965.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    C. Rouveirol and J-F Puget. A simple and general solution for inverting resolution. InEWSL-89, pages 201–210, London, 1989. Pitman.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    C. Sammut and R.B. Banerji. Learning concepts by asking questions. In R. Michalski, J. Carbonnel, and T. Mitchell, editors,Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach. Vol. 2, pages 167–192. Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1986.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    E.Y. Shapiro.Algorithmic program debugging. MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    E.H. Shortliffe and B. Buchanan. A model of inexact reasoning in medicine.Mathematical Biosciences, 23:351–379, 1975.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    S. Slocombe, K. Moore, and M. Zelonf. Engineering expert systems applications. InProceedings of the Annual Conference of the BCS Specialist Group on Expert Systems. British Computer Society, London, 1986.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    R.J. Solomonoff. A formal theory of inductive inference.J. Comput. Sys., 7:376–388, 1964.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    L. Sterling and E. Shapiro.The art of Prolog: advanced programming techniques. MIT-Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    A. Turing. Systems of logic based on ordinals.Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, pages 161–228, 1939.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    A. Turing. The automatic computing engine.Lecture to the London Mathematical Society, 1947.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    R. Wirth. Completing logic programs by inverse resolution. InEWSL-89, pages 239–250, London, 1989, Pitman.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ohmsha, Ltd. and Springer 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Muggleton
    • 1
  1. 1.The Turing InstituteGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations